Consider this hypothetical situation:

[The Anti-Red]

After your glorious revolution when we reach pure communism, I assume you would all kindly welcome a traveler into your communities for a week or two and would feed, shelter, and clothe him for that time. What's to stop some lazy bum from wandering around the world, doing nothing productive, and living off of every community he visits? You surely won't know of his scheme, and neither will any previous or future community he has visited. One person, of course, is no problem. But what happens when a million lazy bums catch onto his act? Will a local workers council regulate how much time everyone can spend away from the community? Will it become illegal to go on any vacation at all?

[Dimentio]

In a post-scarcity society, human work is not a zero-sum game. The total productive capacity distributed according to equal shares does not mean that certain individuals would be unfairly treated. Millimeter fairness is an impossibility, but in a more and more automated world, we could theoretically lower labour time indefinitely, until we have reached an Eloan situation.

[Jazzratt]

I towuld be fairly stupid of the traveler, they already have their allowance of energy credits, their only reason for travel would really be just for a holiday or to migrate. Being fed and clothed would, after all, be deducted from their energy credit total rather than anyone elses.

[KC]

What's to stop some lazy bum from wandering around the world, doing nothing productive, and living off of every community he visits?

Nothing.

[The Anti-Red]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 09:27 pm
In a post-scarcity society, human work is not a zero-sum game. The total productive capacity distributed according to equal shares does not mean that certain individuals would be unfairly treated. Millimeter fairness is an impossibility, but in a more and more automated world, we could theoretically lower labour time indefinitely, until we have reached an Eloan situation.
What about the time leading up until then, though? What if millions of people decide they don't want to work, but would rather wander around leeching off of unsuspecting communities? Then the honest people will be forced to work an unfair amount.


I towuld be fairly stupid of the traveler, they already have their allowance of energy credits, their only reason for travel would really be just for a holiday or to migrate. Being fed and clothed would, after all, be deducted from their energy credit total rather than anyone elses.

Energy credits? What exactly are those and who decides how many everyone gets? What happens if someone spends his or hers unwisely and runs out?


Nothing.

So..do you admit that there is a flaw in your system?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by The Anti-[email protected] 03, 2007 09:35 pm

I towuld be fairly stupid of the traveler, they already have their allowance of energy credits, their only reason for travel would really be just for a holiday or to migrate. Being fed and clothed would, after all, be deducted from their energy credit total rather than anyone elses.

Energy credits? What exactly are those and who decides how many everyone gets? What happens if someone spends his or hers unwisely and runs out?
A representation of the maximum feasable amount of energy a single person will be able to "consume, based on the maximum amount of energy avaialable. They measure kilowatthours used in production. They will be calculated by the administarators of a technate. RUnning out would be extremely difficult, but since food production should be calculated seperatley they would still be able to continue eating until they are next given credits.



Nothing So..do you admit that there is a flaw in your system? Personally I think it's fucking stupid to posit a perfect system, or even start on the assumption any of us are positing a flawless system We are simply in favour of a sytem much less flawed than the one currently in place.

[KC]

So..do you admit that there is a flaw in your system?

Nah.

Perhaps you realize that people already do this?

[Pow R. Toc H.]

Anti-Red:

When did we ever say our system was perfect? Just because once in a while there will be a bum, it makes our system so vastly flawed that no one would be able to live in it? I think not my friend. Take a look at capitalism. It probably creates more bums than communism ever will.

[RebelDog]

After your glorious revolution when we reach pure communism, I assume you would all kindly welcome a traveler into your communities for a week or two and would feed, shelter, and clothe him for that time. What's to stop some lazy bum from wandering around the world, doing nothing productive, and living off of every community he visits? You surely won't know of his scheme, and neither will any previous or future community he has visited. One person, of course, is no problem. But what happens when a million lazy bums catch onto his act? Will a local workers council regulate how much time everyone can spend away from the community? Will it become illegal to go on any vacation at all?

Its christmas every day for the bourgeoise, royal family etc, I don't hear you critiicise those lazy parasitical shower of scum.

If someone wanted to engage in such activity as bumming around then why would we stop them, people would be free to do what they want. The production of goods and services would be a entirely collective undertaking and people would be only pleased to do their bit. One of the rewards would be an always dwindling working week with more time for pleasure, recreation and bumming about. There are many idle people (non-bourgeoise) who are not motivated to do work in capitalist society because its so horrible. No democracy, no collective ownership, no unionisation in many cases, poor wages/conditions, hard repetitive monotonous slave labour. The only reason capitalism gets anyone to work is because we proletarians are compelled to do so to survive in a capitalist society. Communism/anarchism will no problem producing. The collective is a powerful motivational reason to work. I would adore going to work in a global communist society. I can't stand going to work now and I fight the bosses every chance I get.

I can't go on holiday now because I have no money. Bill Gates or the queen can go anywhere they want in total luxury.

[Pawn Power]

I towuld be fairly stupid of the traveler, they already have their allowance of energy credits, their only reason for travel would really be just for a holiday or to migrate. Being fed and clothed would, after all, be deducted from their energy credit total rather than anyone elses.

Energy credis? Sounds like money to me...


After your glorious revolution when we reach pure communism, I assume you would all kindly welcome a traveler into your communities for a week or two and would feed, shelter, and clothe him for that time. What's to stop some lazy bum from wandering around the world, doing nothing productive, and living off of every community he visits? You surely won't know of his scheme, and neither will any previous or future community he has visited. One person, of course, is no problem. But what happens when a million lazy bums catch onto his act? Will a local workers council regulate how much time everyone can spend away from the community? Will it become illegal to go on any vacation at all?

This hypothetical situation makes a number of silly assumptions. Firstly, that this traveler is somehow a “problem” or burden to us all. As noted the labor that is needed to sustain all of societies well being will be dramatically reduced when resources are not concentrated in the hands of a few and when redundant labor is done away with. Furthermore all labor is understood to be completely voluntary. So no one would stop this person.

It is also assumed that a vast number of people would partake in this thus endangering the stability of society. I wouldn’t mind doing some traveling myself in such a situation but to assume that there would so many people traveling and not working is a bit absurd. There are many reasons for this including conservatism, family, community, and aptness. People have friends and family that they would not want to leave for longevity. People also tend to get connected to their homes and community and would feel some sort of responsibility to them (also a reason while people will work voluntarily). Also a lot of people are just conservative and like to stay put or could not physically or mentally (loneliness, etc.) engage in such a life style.

This is not to say that nobody would partake in such actions but that the number of people that do would not destabilize society by consuming more resources then worked. People will probably be raised to understand their responsibility to themselves and community and when one is working for the good of themselves and the benefit of society and not capitalists and bosses they will be much more inclined to work. Heck, people work like horses now and get shit!

People traveling would also unlikely be complete tourists or vacationers and participate in visiting community work by helping out with what they can. With large amounts of free time most people don’t prefer to sit around all- it is quite boring and unrewarding. Living in a sort of community for any period of noteworthy time and doing nothing will most likely be looked down upon, so one can just move again or stay and not work, so if one prefers this sort of lonely ostracized lifestyle they can partake without any material punishment but it would seem that this would not a be a considerable percentage of the population.

[Pawn Power]

And as Zampanò and The Dissent a say people today engage in this sort of activity-- from capitalists to traveling squatters.

It is important to note that these travelers are of course still appart of ecology adding to all those important factors of community communication, genetic dispersal, ect.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 03, 2007 11:38 pm

I towuld be fairly stupid of the traveler, they already have their allowance of energy credits, their only reason for travel would really be just for a holiday or to migrate. Being fed and clothed would, after all, be deducted from their energy credit total rather than anyone elses.

Energy credis? Sounds like money to me...
1 You cannot trade them, give them to anyone else or otherwise use them like money.

2 Once used they are 'destroyed' not given to somone else.

2 They are simply an easy method of tracking distribution and making sure everyone gets an exactly equal share in the products made through energy

3 They do not represent an abstract concept, rather they represent the concrete idea of energy - kilowatthours

4 They cannot be hoarded, at the beggining of a new year your quota is cancelled and you get a new one, calculated again.

5 They are not part of an 'economy'

but, yeah exactly like money.

[MrDoom]

Why can ECs not be traded? I understand why they cannot be stored or 'created' in a market (as they represent a certain portion of energy-processing capability at any given time), but it seems strange they cannot be given away so long as they are still valid within their timeframe and the sum energy in the system remains static.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 12:07 am
Why can ECs not be traded? I understand why they cannot be stored or 'created' in a market (as they represent a certain portion of energy-processing capability at any given time), but it seems strange they cannot be given away so long as they are still valid within their timeframe and the sum energy in the system remains static.
BEcause it would be very easy to have a system whereby someone gives someone a 'gift' for a certian item - the two are of course 'unrelated'...

In other words, creating a black market. Which is, of course, undesirable - we don't want a market economy returning.

[MrDoom]

Aha, I see. That makes much sense.

[RevMARKSman]

They will be calculated by the administarators of a technate.

Administrators, meaning people? Wouldn't the material incentive to "cheat a little" be tempting for people?

I'd prefer computers with calculation programs that are agreed upon by the people, and then set up with an open-access system so everyone can view the data, but cannot change them.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 12:35 am

They will be calculated by the administarators of a technate.

Administrators, meaning people? Wouldn't the material incentive to "cheat a little" be tempting for people?

I'd prefer computers with calculation programs that are agreed upon by the people, and then set up with an open-access system so everyone can view the data, but cannot change them.
You're right that does sound better.

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 12:35 am

They will be calculated by the administarators of a technate.

Administrators, meaning people? Wouldn't the material incentive to "cheat a little" be tempting for people?

I'd prefer computers with calculation programs that are agreed upon by the people, and then set up with an open-access system so everyone can view the data, but cannot change them.
It would be somewhat difficult to 'cheat' in a system with a static amount of 'wealth' in which everyone is supposed to recieve an equal share of energy-proccessing capacity, and all items have an objective energy-cost. Someone could 'skimp' on an item's energy cost and then the machinery would not run, or give themselves a few 'extra' credits, which would be unacounted for in the energy system.

EDIT: Not that computerization is not a good thing, either.

[KC]

What's the point of this discussion?

[The Anti-Red]

A representation of the maximum feasable amount of energy a single person will be able to "consume, based on the maximum amount of energy avaialable. They measure kilowatthours used in production. They will be calculated by the administarators of a technate. RUnning out would be extremely difficult, but since food production should be calculated seperatley they would still be able to continue eating until they are next given credits.

Energy input, clearly, isn't the only measure of worth. Manpower is another, which is very difficult to measure. It is also impossible to guess at how much manpower will be available, since it is not a reliable resource under your system. Manpower in this instance includes mostly the operation of your machines, but also the design of new machines.


Personally I think it's fucking stupid to posit a perfect system, or even start on the assumption any of us are positing a flawless system We are simply in favour of a sytem much less flawed than the one currently in place.

I would agree with you, were it a minor flaw that did not hinder your system's ability to function.


Perhaps you realize that people already do this?

Yes, but only through corrupted social programs such as welfare.


When did we ever say our system was perfect? Just because once in a while there will be a bum, it makes our system so vastly flawed that no one would be able to live in it?

Well, unless a few kind-spirited people are able to produce enough for the rest of the population(which has decided it's unfair for them to have to work when others don't), then yes. It will not just be one person. It will be millions, and when people realize it is happening, they will stop working as well so that they do not benefit the freeloaders.


Its christmas every day for the bourgeoise, royal family etc, I don't hear you critiicise those lazy parasitical shower of scum.

The vast majority of the bourgeoisie worked for its money. The rest benefited from the hard work of a family member or something of that nature. The royal family hasn't done shit to further society as far as I've seen, so the only reason you don't hear me criticizing them is that I haven't been around here long enough for you to hear me.


If someone wanted to engage in such activity as bumming around then why would we stop them

Because they're taking away from society and not helping it.


The production of goods and services would be a entirely collective undertaking and people would be only pleased to do their bit.

You hope. You have no reason to believe this works on any scale larger than (..and I'm being generous..) a town.


The only reason capitalism gets anyone to work is because we proletarians are compelled to do so to survive in a capitalist society.

And under communism, the only reason anyone would work would be to benefit everyone as a whole. In other words, one does not see the benefit of ones own hard work, and so the motivation to do work severely declines. I rather firmly believe that people are more motivated to benefit themselves than they are to benefit someone they don't know. While this may not be the best thing, I am doubtful that it can be changed, and this is why I am not an advocate of communism.




I can't stand going to work now and I fight the bosses every chance I get.

Perhaps you should get a new job or begin your own business and quit whining like a little child.


As noted the labor that is needed to sustain all of societies well being will be dramatically reduced when resources are not concentrated in the hands of a few

How, exactly, will this reduce labor?


It is also assumed that a vast number of people would partake in this thus endangering the stability of society. I wouldn’t mind doing some traveling myself in such a situation but to assume that there would so many people traveling and not working is a bit absurd.

Many people don't even have to. If just a few people do it and others catch on to what they're doing, they will stop helping those few travelers and other problems may arise as a result.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by The Anti-[email protected] 04, 2007 04:30 pm

A representation of the maximum feasable amount of energy a single person will be able to "consume, based on the maximum amount of energy avaialable. They measure kilowatthours used in production. They will be calculated by the administarators of a technate. RUnning out would be extremely difficult, but since food production should be calculated seperatley they would still be able to continue eating until they are next given credits.

Energy input, clearly, isn't the only measure of worth. Manpower is another, which is very difficult to measure. It is also impossible to guess at how much manpower will be available, since it is not a reliable resource under your system. Manpower in this instance includes mostly the operation of your machines, but also the design of new machines.

ECs aren't about measuring the worth of an item, they measure pretty much the kilowatt hours that go into the production of the item. "man"hours will still exist of course, but the society will be organised in such a way as to reduce them as much as possible, mainly by spending most "man"hours trying to create new machines.



Personally I think it's fucking stupid to posit a perfect system, or even start on the assumption any of us are positing a flawless system We are simply in favour of a sytem much less flawed than the one currently in place.

I would agree with you, were it a minor flaw that did not hinder your system's ability to function. It doesn't. Your hyothetical is ridiculous for the reasons stated. If you can't trade ECs, what exactly is the bum getting out of wandering from urbanate to urbanate?

[The Anti-Red]

ECs aren't about measuring the worth of an item, they measure pretty much the kilowatt hours that go into the production of the item. "man"hours will still exist of course, but the society will be organised in such a way as to reduce them as much as possible, mainly by spending most "man"hours trying to create new machines.

Machines can't do everything. No matter how hard you try, you will always have to rely on people to do certain things that machines are unable to do or that people do a far better job at than machines could ever do.

[KC]

Yes, but only through corrupted social programs such as welfare.

First, they don't only do it "through corrupted social programs such as welfare." There are also many people that are homeless that choose to live homeless and do these things. There's many other types of people that do it, too.

Second, what's your point?


Because they're taking away from society and not helping it.

So go do something about it happening today, then, if you're so worried about it.

[RebelDog]

The vast majority of the bourgeoisie worked for its money. The rest benefited from the hard work of a family member or something of that nature. The royal family hasn't done shit to further society as far as I've seen, so the only reason you don't hear me criticizing them is that I haven't been around here long enough for you to hear me.

The bourgeoise don't work, tell me what work they do?
OK on the royal family.


Because they're taking away from society and not helping it.

As do the bourgeoise. You have said to me the bourgeoise work is that they "oversee" the production process, why doesn't the guy who is buming about say he is overseeing things?

It is not surprising that a pro-capitalist cannot see past the glorious limitations of the capitalist society, I expect that, its in your own interests to believe (like all ruling classes hitherto) that yours is the greatest and only way of running society. But this is not the end of history and new ways of organising society will inevitably come to pass. Just because individualism and apathy are problems with your competitive society doesn't mean they will be a problem with ours. There will be a revolutionary transformation of society, people will think and act differently in ways your brain cannot, and indeed, refuses to imagine. If there is to be a co-operative, non-authoritarian society in the future then it means your role at the top of society is at an end. It scares you to think humans are capable of civilisation beyond the limited, capitalist model.


You hope. You have no reason to believe this works on any scale larger than (..and I'm being generous..) a town.

You need to say why you think that will be the case. I completely disagree with your assumption but you need to explain why you think its true.


And under communism, the only reason anyone would work would be to benefit everyone as a whole. In other words, one does not see the benefit of ones own hard work, and so the motivation to do work severely declines. I rather firmly believe that people are more motivated to benefit themselves than they are to benefit someone they don't know. While this may not be the best thing, I am doubtful that it can be changed, and this is why I am not an advocate of communism.

One would see the benefit of ones own work everywhere when they share in the goods, services, culture and pleasure of the communist, ultra-productive society, free from the stress of privation and competition. Proletarians work to benefit people they don't know right now in the capitalist mode of production. How is "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" not a far superior model than yours. You fail to see past your blinkers again when you say that communism is a society that must "change" fundemental characteristics of human behavior. If communism was a model that had to change human hard-wired attributes to succeed then it would be pointless, but the point is communism seeks to change nothing about human beings. Even the capitalist society we live in right now is based on a huge amount of human co-operation, producing goods, moving them, mutial aid, communities, government, etc. Humans have a long list of behaviours they manifest at different times in order to survive. Being greedy and individualistic is behaviour sometimes needed to survive in a capitalist society due to competition and scarcity. Remove the elements which encourage competition and scarcity and humans will not behave in a greedy individualistic manner. Capitalist society is not as competitive as the bourgeoise like to admit. It requires the proletarian class to be very co-operative and most of the greed and competition is between the bourgeoise.


Perhaps you should get a new job or begin your own business and quit whining like a little child.

No. Fuck off.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by The Anti-[email protected] 04, 2007 05:17 pm

ECs aren't about measuring the worth of an item, they measure pretty much the kilowatt hours that go into the production of the item. "man"hours will still exist of course, but the society will be organised in such a way as to reduce them as much as possible, mainly by spending most "man"hours trying to create new machines.

Machines can't do everything. No matter how hard you try, you will always have to rely on people to do certain things that machines are unable to do or that people do a far better job at than machines could ever do.
What's your point?